Filtering

[GaryK]

And yet you had this to say about nearly all moderate conservatives.

I consider moderate-conservatives to be an utterly lost cause, as they are nearly all transitional. (Fundamental-conservatives I actually have a bit more hope for.)

As a seeker, I can never hope in a million years to fit in or be part of a transitional setting where the culture is defined by "we are less plain than our parents, who in turn were less plain than our grandparents". That is one of the reasons I consider it a lost cause.

Yes, Gary, I think the movement as a whole is a negative thing that leads people away from Christ.

A large part of my experience is being part of a church that was moderate-conservative that nowadays no longer exists and realising that is the bitter end of the movement.

One church experience doth not the whole movement define.

[JohnH]

One church experience doth not the whole movement define.

I agree. However, I think the observations about transitional Anabaptism hold true for a lot of groups outside of just the ones I've personally experienced.

Another part of my perspective you may want to think about is just how few people that I met/knew 12 years ago are still in plain/conservative Anabaptist circles at all. The attrition rate is fairly high in the transitional circles. In the non-transitional circles, it is much lower. This is something that is personally quite painful for the seeker, and also makes us feel more comfortable looking for a place that is dedicated to avoiding this (as opposed to pretending it doesn't exist or claiming it's actually a good thing).

[Ernie]

One church experience doth not the whole movement define.

I agree. However, I think the observations about transitional Anabaptism hold true for a lot of groups outside of just the ones I've personally experienced.

Another part of my perspective you may want to think about is just how few people that I met/knew 12 years ago are still in plain/conservative Anabaptist circles at all. The attrition rate is fairly high in the transitional circles. In the non-transitional circles, it is much lower. This is something that is personally quite painful for the seeker, and also makes us feel more comfortable looking for a place that is dedicated to avoiding this (as opposed to pretending it doesn't exist or claiming it's actually a good thing).

Recently I talked to a couple that has been trying to join the Anabaptists the last several years, but the first two churches they attempted to join have folded up. So yes, this is really discouraging for them.
These churches were in the progressive-conservative constituency.
But they aren't interested in something more conservative than this because they don't believe in withholding communion from people who are "in Christ." So, I guess they will need to keep trying new churches until they find one that lasts awhile.

[Neto]

One church experience doth not the whole movement define.

I agree. However, I think the observations about transitional Anabaptism hold true for a lot of groups outside of just the ones I've personally experienced.

Another part of my perspective you may want to think about is just how few people that I met/knew 12 years ago are still in plain/conservative Anabaptist circles at all. The attrition rate is fairly high in the transitional circles. In the non-transitional circles, it is much lower. This is something that is personally quite painful for the seeker, and also makes us feel more comfortable looking for a place that is dedicated to avoiding this (as opposed to pretending it doesn't exist or claiming it's actually a good thing).

Recently I talked to a couple that has been trying to join the Anabaptists the last several years, but the first two churches they attempted to join have folded up. So yes, this is really discouraging for them.
These churches were in the progressive-conservative constituency.
But they aren't interested in something more conservative than this because they don't believe in withholding communion from people who are "in Christ." So, I guess they will need to keep trying new churches until they find one that lasts awhile.

I imagine that the crux of the matter is how they define what it means to be 'in Christ'. The Banawa talk about a concept which I have found very difficult to translate into English. Literally it is 'to be to Christ'. It denotes a general preoccupation with, orientation toward, or being 'tied up with', sold out on -something along those lines. It is an intense focus on another person that to me, involves a very deep connection with that person. I will surmise that one who is 'to Christ' in this way cannot be a 'transitional Christian', one who is holding back from total obedience. (Note: I am not talking about 'perfection' itself, but a willingness to pursue it.)

I've been reading a book where the author asks questions, which appear to be rhetorical questions (that is, questions that assume an affirmative response). Questions such as "Should the church contain members who are still in same-sex relationships, but are seeking to live for Christ?" (Not the exact words, I don't have the book here in front of me right now.)

[Thomas_muntzer]

Holdemans have never had a position against telephones, mobile or otherwise. Neither have most other Old Order Mennonites; the ones I can think of that did would be the Hoover type groups.

Mobile telephones have been around for over a century, although they used to be rare/expensive. During the World War II era there was one called the "S-Phone".

The Holdemans never took a stance against smartphones, even though they did—and do—forbid many of the things that the vast majority of Holdeman members do with smartphones today, especially when there is no filtering in place.

I have pointed out the inconsistency of banning television while allowing smartphones—though not to defend TV; it is clearly a tool the world and its rulers have used to control the population, and it is detrimental to following a proper Christian path. However, smartphones and social media are far worse.

You mentioned earlier that the average Holdeman member spends less time looking at a phone screen than the average person does watching television, but I really question that claim. The average person uses their smartphone for about three hours a day, and I see no reason why it would be different for Holdemans if they aren't using any kind of filtering.

Finally, as others have noted, I understand your view that extra-biblical rules regarding dress and head coverings should not change at all—that is a very valid position. However, it is a mistake to conclude that congregations which have adjusted certain dress codes—without violating a single word of what the Bible says about modesty (such as the Biblical Mennonite Alliance, Anabaptist Disciples, and others)—are on a less righteous path simply because they allow those changes.

Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
Isaiah 65:5

[Ernie]

Finally, as others have noted, I understand your view that extra-biblical rules regarding dress and head coverings should not change at all—that is a very valid position. However, it is a mistake to conclude that congregations which have adjusted certain dress codes—without violating a single word of what the Bible says about modesty (such as the Biblical Mennonite Alliance, Anabaptist Disciples, and others)—are on a less righteous path simply because they allow those changes.

See thread on Transitional Anabaptist Churches.

[JohnH]

You mentioned earlier that the average Holdeman member spends less time looking at a phone screen than the average person does watching television, but I really question that claim. The average person uses their smartphone for about three hours a day, and I see no reason why it would be different for Holdemans if they aren't using any kind of filtering.

I don't remember claiming that, but I would say it's probably less, particularly in the domain of viewing streaming media. (If someone has the church-recommended filtering software installed, they are not able to view more than a few minutes of streaming video a day.)

Finally, as others have noted, I understand your view that extra-biblical rules regarding dress and head coverings should not change at all—that is a very valid position. However, it is a mistake to conclude that congregations which have adjusted certain dress codes—without violating a single word of what the Bible says about modesty (such as the Biblical Mennonite Alliance, Anabaptist Disciples, and others)—are on a less righteous path simply because they allow those changes.

That presumes a principle which is followed by fundamental-conservative (Ernie calls them progressive-conservative) churches that you have to find some kind of Bible verse to justify a practice, sort of like the Bible is a rulebook or legislation. Over time, some of us have observed this leads to a transitional church which becomes more worldly as each generation passes by.

With that said, I think the problem is transitionalism, and it seems many transitional churches start with a strict emphasis on dress codes (whilst transitioning away from other things, such as limits on how much wealth a person may acquire), and later on will announce they are transitioning away from strict dress codes (often citing that there are no Bible verses to support the position, which is interesting, since the Bible has plenty of textual support against accumulating wealth, yet I do not see BMA or ADC churches taking a strong stance against accumulating wealth).

[Thomas_muntzer]

You mentioned earlier that the average Holdeman member spends less time looking at a phone screen than the average person does watching television, but I really question that claim. The average person uses their smartphone for about three hours a day, and I see no reason why it would be different for Holdemans if they aren't using any kind of filtering.

I don't remember claiming that, but I would say it's probably less, particularly in the domain of viewing streaming media. (If someone has the church-recommended filtering software installed, they are not able to view more than a few minutes of streaming video a day.)

Finally, as others have noted, I understand your view that extra-biblical rules regarding dress and head coverings should not change at all—that is a very valid position. However, it is a mistake to conclude that congregations which have adjusted certain dress codes—without violating a single word of what the Bible says about modesty (such as the Biblical Mennonite Alliance, Anabaptist Disciples, and others)—are on a less righteous path simply because they allow those changes.

That presumes a principle which is followed by fundamental-conservative (Ernie calls them progressive-conservative) churches that you have to find some kind of Bible verse to justify a practice, sort of like the Bible is a rulebook or legislation. Over time, some of us have observed this leads to a transitional church which becomes more worldly as each generation passes by.

With that said, I think the problem is transitionalism, and it seems many transitional churches start with a strict emphasis on dress codes (whilst transitioning away from other things, such as limits on how much wealth a person may acquire), and later on will announce they are transitioning away from strict dress codes (often citing that there are no Bible verses to support the position, which is interesting, since the Bible has plenty of textual support against accumulating wealth, yet I do not see BMA or ADC churches taking a strong stance against accumulating wealth).

And where does the principle of *sola scriptura* fit in? Or do the Holdemans not hold to that principle?

Should we then do as the Catholic Church does and declare that the community of believers stands above the Bible—meaning that whatever the church decides takes precedence over anything the Bible says? That is a very interesting debate, because it was the very issue that sparked the Protestant Reformation and the Radical Reformation, which gave rise to Anabaptism.

Regarding the accumulation of wealth, I agree with your position—and the same goes for the dress code—though I do disagree with the way many Mennonites equate having different extra-biblical rules with sin

[JohnH]

And where does the principle of *sola scriptura* fit in? Or do the Holdemans not hold to that principle?

Generally speaking, Anabaptism was a different strain than Lutheran & Reformed thinking, including the five solas. (An obvious question for those who claim to be so into sola scriptura is why they take a pair of scissors to their Bibles and cut out the apocryphal books; we're just lucky Luther didn't get his way who would have liked to cut out James and a few other books, too.)

Should we then do as the Catholic Church does and declare that the community of believers stands above the Bible—meaning that whatever the church decides takes precedence over anything the Bible says? That is a very interesting debate, because it was the very issue that sparked the Protestant Reformation and the Radical Reformation, which gave rise to Anabaptism.

The general view of Anabaptism has, historically, been that we are centred on Jesus, not on the biblical text itself. The Bible does certainly give us one way to learn more about Jesus and what he said, but it is far from the only way.

So, we would believe that we find truth and the proper way to live when we have a community of people who are endeavouring to follow Jesus. That includes listening to the scriptures being preached and choosing to follow the clear, simple reading of Jesus' words to us.

Regarding the accumulation of wealth, I agree with your position—and the same goes for the dress code—though I do disagree with the way many Mennonites equate having different extra-biblical rules with sin

When we join a church community, we agree to do work together and to share discernment with each other for how we shall then live. That can include dress codes, although it usually involves many other things. This is important - the alternative is that "every man does what is right in his own eyes". My experience is that individual discernment/conviction often leads to a church where people aren't following Jesus' path at all when it comes to clothes. We need discernment from each other and we need to submit to our brethren. The dress code I see in modern evangelical settings is often not very inspiring.

[Thomas_muntzer]

Generally speaking, Anabaptism was a different strain than Lutheran & Reformed thinking, including the five solas. (An obvious question for those who claim to be so into sola scriptura is why they take a pair of scissors to their Bibles and cut out the apocryphal books; we're just lucky Luther didn't get his way who would have liked to cut out James and a few other books, too.)

I do not know if Menno Simons directly addressed the principle of sola scriptura whether supporting or refuting it. However, a glance at his extensive body of work—specifically the book Foundations of Christian Doctrine reveals the following statement: "We certainly hope that no rational person would be foolish enough to deny that all the Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, were written for our instruction, admonition, and correction, and that they serve as the true scepter and rule by which the Lord's kingdom, house, church, and congregation must be governed. Therefore, anything contrary to Scripture whether in doctrine, belief, sacraments, worship, or conduct must be measured against this infallible rule..."
To me, this represents the very principle of sola scriptura. Regarding the Anabaptist emphasis on being Christ-centered it is clear from The New Birth (1537) (the only book by Menno I have read) that this is essential, though differences of opinion may arise regarding what it actually means to be Christ-centered.

The issue of the deuterocanonical books within the Catholic Church's Old Testament canon is truly fascinating; after all, that canon was in place for fifteen centuries, meaning that any Christian saved prior to the 16th century believed those books to be inspired. I do not consider it wrong to read books found in the canons of other denominations, such as the Book of Enoch (Orthodox Church) or the Books of Maccabees (the deuterocanonical texts). As for the apocryphal books, I have not formed a definite opinion; I once read the Gospel of Thomas, and it actually shares the same structure as the Synoptic Gospels, recounting essentially the same scenes and miracles of Jesus.